Attitudes towards Global Warming

[kleindoofy]

While browsing another foum just now, I noticed a thread about Global Warming being called Climate change.

Here are quotes from ten of the first 14 posts, i.e. an opinion quota of ca. 70%:

our old friend Global Warming has been subtly renamed Climate Change by the media
Don't get me started...
Actually, I am totally FOR "global warming". I live in Wisconsin. It's always cold here. Even the summers are not warm enough for me. It did not even break 90 here last summer. "Global warming"???? Bring it on!
Indeed.
My Grandmother had a saying about these things: Whether its cold or whether its hot, we're going to have weather whether or not.
I remember the summer of 76 and having several days off school due to snow almost every year. Now they're going on as if we've caused some new environmental catastrophe.
You can't win, can you? If it's hot, that due to GW. But if it's colder than usual, we're told that GW doesn't already mean hot weather. Weather always changes. I've seen nothing over the past 60 years to suggest there's anything to worry about.
Sunspots causes it all
Global Warming is a scam.
Snow? Cold? Sucks to be you.
With that attitude, it looks like humanity is going to get what it deserves. :doh:

[edit:]

A few more, raising the ratio to ca. 80%

Call it what you want as far as I am concerned it's a lot of rubbish.
I've always been of the posistion that humans have done **** all (scientific term) to contribute to C02 levels. 97% of C02 comes from the earth, so ..., pick a fight with nature instead. I cannot stand these weird beards who want us to change our lifestyles for the sake of something that is effectively self destructing (nature). Watching an Inconvenient Truth, the whole thing is very dramatic. I have never denied climate change/global warming. I have, and still do, deny humans have anything to do with it.
there is no concrete proof that humanity is the cause of global warming/climate change
Why must we inconvenience ourselves for something that might/might not be true.
I doubt we possess the money or power to make a one degree difference to the planet's temperature, and as it naturally fluctuates, going in and out of ice ages regularly, would there be a point ?

Wow!

[novaderrik]

that's weird.. i thought the debate was over, and that it was a proven fact that the only way to stop global warming was for average folks to live a stone age existence while certain members of the elite environmental royalty live in huge climate controlled houses and fly their private jets across the globe and get paid a lot of money to give speeches about how we are destroying the earth by living our modern life style.
at this point, i don't care if we are responsible for the temperature rise that may or may not be happening. if the "leaders" that claim to care about it aren't willing to do whatever it takes to save the planet by living the life they claim to want everyone else to lead, then why should i?

[Ronald Brak]

Novaderrik, global warming is caused by increasing levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. These mostly result from burning fossil fuels. Reducing the level of fossil fuel use does not require some people in live a stone age existence. For example France and Switzerland only use about a third of the fossil fuel that the US does and according to the Human Development Index they have standards of living higher than the US.

[peteshimmon]

There are arguments on both sides...

[HenrikOlsen]

But France cheats by being nuclear for almost everything that can be:)

[Ronald Brak]

I don't know if that's cheating, but they certainly don't have a stone age standard of living there. I notice Denmark produces less than half the CO2 of the US per capita while apparently just being ahead of the US on the Human Development Index. What is the Danish cheat?

[jokergirl]

I am mostly annoyed at the debate because the media is barking up the wrong tree most of the time. Instead of putting even tighter pollution restrictions on first-world countries and making naïve people play hippy games called "buy local" we should clean up the third-world and threshhold countries who are still using brown coal and own most of the production plants in the world. Those are a lot bigger task than making a few lucky thousand live "consciously".

;)

[mugaliens]

Wow!

If you liked those, here's another one for you:

"Fighting global warming is like standing in the surf and fighting against the rising crest of a wave.

Chill!

Hop on a board and just ride it. It's a lot more fun and a heck of a lot better use of your time and energy.

More effective, too." - Mugs

[novaderrik]

But France cheats by being nuclear for almost everything that can be:)

and the people here in the USA that protest the evils of coal and natural gas power plants also don't like nuclear power. they are especially against it if they are within 50 miles of it, and even if they are for it, they are against storing the radioactive waste products anywhere on the same continent that they live on.
they also tend to only like things like hydroelectric dams and wind turbines as long as they don't have to look at them.
they also protest against things like child labor, but do a lot of their shopping at Wal Mart.

[BigDon]

What is the Danish cheat?

The Danish cheat is not being saddled by two groups of wealthy people who have diametrically opposed and equally unrealistic views of how their country should be run.


(Wow, I don't often get to answer something for Ron!)

[jokergirl]

There's another part of the Danish cheat: most people accept the fact that there actually *is* a change, whatever it is caused by, at face value and go straight to "so what can we do about it" rather than quibbling about whether or not it was *them*.

;)

[tusenfem]

I fail to see in the OP why this should be a "significant sampling" statistics.

[KaiYeves]

I don't think France is "cheating", per se. They have a solution, and I don't think they've had any bad accidents.

[Swift]

I fail to see in the OP why this should be a "significant sampling" statistics.
I agree, especially considering we don't even know what forum it is from.

By the way, if anyone would like to discuss the science of global warming/climate change, there are several threads about it in Science and Technology.

[sarongsong]

I agree, especially considering we don't even know what forum it is from...Not hard to find out (http://forum.419eater.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=157658).While browsing another foum just now...quotes from ten of the first 14 posts...A few more...I have a cat that "shares" victims of its hunting prowess with me. :rolleyes:

[HenrikOlsen]

What is the Danish cheat?
The country is small and flat, ie. perfect for bicycles and utterly silly for monstrous off-road gas guzzlers.

Also, public transport is considered part of the infrastructure, ie. infrastructure is considered good when you don't have to use your car as opposed to what I've heard a US'ian state, the infrastructure is bad if you can't use your car:)

That gas is taxed to 7+$/gallon also helps.

[BigDon]

All good considerations Henrik.

And you are so correct. My neuro condition lost me my liscence to drive back in '82.

It's a lot like being stuck at 16.

[Salty]

What gets me, I thought that CO2 was a necessary ingrediant for plants to make oxygen from. Since that happens, what's the problem with more of it? The plants just make more oxygen. Since the CO2 is consumed by plants, it shouldn't be such a greenhouse contributor.

FYI, there's hundreds of thousands of square miles of bog in Siberia, which when thawed will produce methane into the atmosphere at a prodigidous rate.

As I've written before, I read an article that all the planets were warming, about five years ago. I think there was a solar maximum of sunspots at the time. So, I think nature has more to do with all this, than we do.

[korjik]

The country is small and flat, ie. perfect for bicycles and utterly silly for monstrous off-road gas guzzlers.

Also, public transport is considered part of the infrastructure, ie. infrastructure is considered good when you don't have to use your car as opposed to what I've heard a US'ian state, the infrastructure is bad if you can't use your car:)

That gas is taxed to 7+$/gallon also helps.

To put in some numbers for reference:
The USA has 228 times the land area, with only 55 times the population.

As a matter of fact Denmark has approximately the same population as the Houston metro area (5.5 million in Denmark vs 5.6 million in Houston metro)

[korjik]

While browsing another foum just now, I noticed a thread about Global Warming being called Climate change.

Here are quotes from ten of the first 14 posts, i.e. an opinion quota of ca. 70%:


With that attitude, it looks like humanity is going to get what it deserves. :doh:

[edit:]

A few more, raising the ratio to ca. 80%


Wow!

Cherrypicking quotes helps how?

[novaderrik]

Cherrypicking quotes helps how?

it's a good way to make it look like you have more support than you really do- or at least make it look like you know what you are talking about.
that's how it helps.
everyone does it, so it's cool.

[kleindoofy]

I fail to see in the OP why this should be a "significant sampling" statistics.
Err, the quotation marks are yours, not mine. Any significance was intended *for that thread*. If one wishes to extrapolate to a demographic, feel free, but please don't misquote me in doing so. As clearly stated, it's from a forum. Forums are found on the internet. The internet is a whacky place. I'm well aware of that. In fact, I'm a part of it.

Cherrypicking quotes helps how?
Nothing other than what I said and the % I quoted.

I spotlighted an *attitude*, as clearly stated in the thread name, nothing more. I read that thread and found its general obstinancy very scary.

In fact, considering the scientific orientation and the higher average education level of its members, I expected to find a significantly different attitude on this forum. I appear to have been mistaken.

I personally fail to see how a scientific subject can be a matter of partisan politics or uneducated good ol' boy pep talks, which it obviously is, although not so much on this forum as in other places, including the "real world." Any shortcoming in this perception seems to be on my side.

Whatever, I'll be dead and gone before anything dramatic happens, so good luck world!

[Swift]

I personally fail to see how a scientific subject can be a matter of partisan politics or uneducated good ol' boy pep talks, which it obviously is, although not so much on this forum as in other places, including the "real world." Any shortcoming in this perception seems to be on my side.

Whatever, I'll be dead and gone before anything dramatic happens, so good luck world!
I have no problem seeing how a scientific subject can be a matter of partisan politics.

First, in case anyone doesn't know, I think that global warming is happening and is completely or largely from the actions of humans.

Even when the science is completely solid, as soon as you have to translate that science into policies that affect the economic or social condition of humans, you will have politics.

I don't believe I have any ability to predict the future, but my guess is that humans will at most slightly decrease the total impact of global warming. This is not because of science or technology, this is because of the problems of translating any of that into actual policies or actual technologies on the global scale. I don't think, as a species, we have the collective "will" or "interest" (for the lack of better terms) to do what is necessary - I just don't see it happening.

By the time that a vast enough majority of people are convinced of the need for action, and are willing to act upon it (even if the only action needed is their vote or their money) it will be too late.

[closetgeek]

[QUOTE=Salty;1436670]What gets me, I thought that CO2 was a necessary ingrediant for plants to make oxygen from. Since that happens, what's the problem with more of it? The plants just make more oxygen. Since the CO2 is consumed by plants, it shouldn't be such a greenhouse contributor.

I don't know if this is accurate, please correct me if I am wrong, but the overall amount of foliage is being reduced so the balance is offset. Too much CO2 and not enough plantlife to filter it. That was an explanation in the 90's, I am not sure if it was just a warning against deforestization or a factual answer.

[kleindoofy]

@Swift

I couldn't agree with you more, on all points.

Except:

... Even when the science is completely solid, as soon as you have to translate that science into policies that affect the economic or social condition of humans, you will have politics. ...
Yes, politics in the translation that affect the economic or social condition, but hardly the science itself.

I see religious zealots arguing about the "purpose" of HIV, but none of them refute its existence or call it a "scam."

The ultimate irony would be if an SUV were used as my hearse. However, I plan to live for at least 30-40 more years and hope that they won't exist any longer at that point in time.

[Swift]

Originally Posted by Salty
What gets me, I thought that CO2 was a necessary ingrediant for plants to make oxygen from. Since that happens, what's the problem with more of it? The plants just make more oxygen. Since the CO2 is consumed by plants, it shouldn't be such a greenhouse contributor.

I don't know if this is accurate, please correct me if I am wrong, but the overall amount of foliage is being reduced so the balance is offset. Too much CO2 and not enough plantlife to filter it. That was an explanation in the 90's, I am not sure if it was just a warning against deforestization or a factual answer.
If I remember correctly, the response of plants to increased CO2 is much more complicated than that. For one, it varies greatly from plant species to species. Second, CO2, or lack there of, is not necessarily the limiting step in plant growth (water or other nutrients can limit it too, for example). It certainly isn't a simple linear response.

[Swift]

Yes, politics in the translation that affect the economic or social condition, but hardly the science itself.

I see religious zealots arguing about the "purpose" of HIV, but none of them refute its existence or call it a "scam."

Actually, I have seen people argue the existence of HIV, but that's another story.

As far as the science of GW itself.... I think (hope?) for the most part, the arguments I've seen on BAUT are mostly based on differing interpretations of the complicated science involved. I can't speak for such discussions outside of BAUT, but I suspect sometimes a person's "politics" can back influence their interpretations of science.

I'll repeat something I've said several times in the GW threads. The science of GW is different from, say classic chemistry lab experiments. You can't do the whole change one variable at a time / control group type of experiments. We don't have a second Earth to compare our results too.

You are also dealing with an extremely complicated system with a vast number of variables and interactions, operating on a large variety of time-scales. That's why much of the work on GW has involved computer models. And I think such models leave some people "unsatisified" as to the "hardness" of their scientific proofs. It also leads to a lot of room for huge scientific arguments.

[Fazor]

Well seeing as I'm so knowledgeable about all things environmental, biological, and chemical (riiiight ;))...

Personally, I get tired of every natural event (tornado, hurricane, blizzard, drought, whatever) being blamed on man-made GW.

At the same time, I think paying attention to our emissions and taking steps to reduce destruction of the natural environment (like rainforests) is a smart thing to do. I'm not about to turn into an Ed Begley Jr; but I don't think it's bad to research cleaner ways of doing things.

GW just seems to be another one of those issues where the argument always has to be 100% one way or another. "No we're not hurting anything" or "We're on the brink of death! If everyone doesn't start farting into jars and shipping it into space to control methane levels the ice caps will melt next summer!"

That annoys me.

[Swift]

GW just seems to be another one of those issues where the argument always has to be 100% one way or another. "No we're not hurting anything" or "We're on the brink of death! If everyone doesn't start farting into jars and shipping it into space to control methane levels the ice caps will melt next summer!"

Two thoughts....

First, I don't agree with that completely. There are some extremists on both sides of the issue, and of course, they get most of the attention, particularly from the news media. But I think there are a lot of people out there in the middle who are putting forth pretty sensible stuff about GW.

Second, I hate to say it, but the average human won't do something about a problem until it is a near-death experience. Tell someone that I'm going to have to impose a 5% carbon tax on your gasoline purchases so your grandkids in Columbus wouldn't have problems with malaria, and you won't get a lot of support (and I'm picking a semi-funny example before all yous jump all over me).

[kleindoofy]

@Swift

Once again I agree with you totally, almost.

I don't care about "middle" or any other position, I care about prudent, objective scientific methodology. Of course, these things are extremely complicated with boundless interactions and variables and certainly not a subject that can be accepted or denied by wannabe experts.

As for waiting for the last minute, we're well past even the most optimistic prognosis dates proposed in the Hirsch report.

[Swift]

As for waiting for the last minute, we're well past even the most optimistic prognosis dates proposed in the Hirsch report.
I don't disagree, which is why I said I doubt we (humans) will actually do something.

There was a recent survey of US voters - I don't remember the details, but out of a list of about 10 issues, global warming was at the bottom of the list. I can entirely believe that. Ask average Joe Voter, and at the moment, the economy and their job, and things like that are a much higher and more immediate concern.

Now, a couple of years down the road, we should be over the current economic problems. Do I think global warming will be at the top of the list? No. Why, because the issues are years to decades down the road. Issues with those time-scales never become a concern for the average voter.

And it isn't global warming. How many times do people build houses in flood zones or mud-slide zones, because the events that you have to worry about happen once in a hundred years? How many 20 year olds start saving for their retirement, and how many wait till they are 50 or 60 and suddenly starting going "oh snap!".

Humans aren't as bad as my cat, for example, who doesn't worry about anything past her next meal. But we're pretty close.

[closetgeek]

If I remember correctly, the response of plants to increased CO2 is much more complicated than that. For one, it varies greatly from plant species to species. Second, CO2, or lack there of, is not necessarily the limiting step in plant growth (water or other nutrients can limit it too, for example). It certainly isn't a simple linear response.

Oh, don't get me wrong, I wasn't say that there is more CO2 because of deforestization. I was stating that part of the problem, to my best understanding, is that there is a higher concentration of CO2 than the natural environment provided and it is compounded by the fact that there is a diminishing filtering system.

[closetgeek]

I don't disagree, which is why I said I doubt we (humans) will actually do something.

There was a recent survey of US voters - I don't remember the details, but out of a list of about 10 issues, global warming was at the bottom of the list. I can entirely believe that. Ask average Joe Voter, and at the moment, the economy and their job, and things like that are a much higher and more immediate concern.

Now, a couple of years down the road, we should be over the current economic problems. Do I think global warming will be at the top of the list? No. Why, because the issues are years to decades down the road. Issues with those time-scales never become a concern for the average voter.

And it isn't global warming. How many times do people build houses in flood zones or mud-slide zones, because the events that you have to worry about happen once in a hundred years? How many 20 year olds start saving for their retirement, and how many wait till they are 50 or 60 and suddenly starting going "oh snap!".

Humans aren't as bad as my cat, for example, who doesn't worry about anything past her next meal. But we're pretty close.

A perfect example is the fact that while "going green" is everywhere in the US and so many people seem to support it, there was a recent spike in large SUV "gas-guzzler" sales that coincided with the sudden drop in gas prices.

[korjik]

I don't disagree, which is why I said I doubt we (humans) will actually do something.

There was a recent survey of US voters - I don't remember the details, but out of a list of about 10 issues, global warming was at the bottom of the list. I can entirely believe that. Ask average Joe Voter, and at the moment, the economy and their job, and things like that are a much higher and more immediate concern.

Now, a couple of years down the road, we should be over the current economic problems. Do I think global warming will be at the top of the list? No. Why, because the issues are years to decades down the road. Issues with those time-scales never become a concern for the average voter.

And it isn't global warming. How many times do people build houses in flood zones or mud-slide zones, because the events that you have to worry about happen once in a hundred years? How many 20 year olds start saving for their retirement, and how many wait till they are 50 or 60 and suddenly starting going "oh snap!".

Humans aren't as bad as my cat, for example, who doesn't worry about anything past her next meal. But we're pretty close.

Wasnt GW at the top a couple years ago?

[kleindoofy]

... I doubt we (humans) will actually do something.

There was a recent survey ... out of a list of about 10 issues, global warming was at the bottom of the list. I can entirely believe that. ...
Yup. And when things start to go very bad, the people who diminutively denied everything the loudest will be shouting "why didn't anybody tell us, why didn't anybody do anything, who's going to help me now, who's to blame?"

[korjik]

@Swift

Once again I agree with you totally, almost.

I don't care about "middle" or any other position, I care about prudent, objective scientific methodology. Of course, these things are extremely complicated with boundless interactions and variables and certainly not a subject that can be accepted or denied by wannabe experts.

As for waiting for the last minute, we're well past even the most optimistic prognosis dates proposed in the Hirsch report.

The reason I took a potshot was that we have already proven that we dont have anyone here who can talk to the prudent objective scientific methodology.

Since all you did was make a 'look at all the idiots' post for your OP, I dont even see you talking about the science.

[Fazor]

Sorry, I should have been more clear. I think the vast majority of people are somewhere in the middle. But when the debate arises, it always seems to be between the two extreemes.

And I agree that the average person won't do anything until they think it's last minute. All *I* said is that I don't think it's last minute yet, but that it's prudent to still look into the issue.

[Salty]

[QUOTE]

I don't know if this is accurate, please correct me if I am wrong, but the overall amount of foliage is being reduced so the balance is offset. Too much CO2 and not enough plantlife to filter it. That was an explanation in the 90's, I am not sure if it was just a warning against deforestization or a factual answer.

I think you're right.

So, wouldn't it be something that the contributors to excess CO2, are logging companies, slash and burn farmers and real estate developers; more than factories and fossil fueled vehicles? Something to think about, anyway.

As far as applying the science in a methodical and accurate manner, which science?
Paleontoloty?
Biology?
Meteorology?
etc?

That's why it's so difficult to effectively apply the science and why politics and the media more muddies than clears the allegorical waters, imho.

[HenrikOlsen]

The thing is, plants are limited in the amount of CO2 they can remove from the atmosphere, since they don't "filter" it out, they use it for plant mass, and once they die it's released again from that mass as they are eaten/rot.
It's a one-off temporary reduction.

Had the CO2 in the atmosphere been solely from burning plants there would have been no problem since it would have been a release of CO2 that had been removed a few years earlier and everything would have been in balance, but we're currently burning forests from millions of years ago and that's skewing the short term(tens to thousands of years) balance in a way that can't be compensated by more plants.

Let's get numbers on the table:)

In Denmark, research into biofuels have found that the fastest growth in biomass here is willows harvested after three years.
For economic calculations (to see if it's a profitable crop) 8-14 tons dry mass(25% water) per hectare is expected1, lets use the optimistic 14 tons.
Call all the non-water cellulose2 for yet an over-estimate of carbon content gives 14*0.75*0.44=4.62t/ha/yr. This is how much is locked in plant matter short term.

Coal consumption worldwide3 is 4,558,273,000 t/yr.
This means that to remove the amount of CO2 added per year from coal power alone, you need to take the plant matter from 1 billion hectares(2.5 billion acres/5.8 Texas's) every year and remove it from the system completely, or alternatively add 1 billion hectares(2.5 billion acres/5.8 Texas's) a year to the area where plants are grown.

Sorry, won't work.

1) Dansk Landbrugsrådgivning (http://www.lr.dk/planteavl/informationsserier/info-planter/bioenergi-kalkuler.htm), Danish advisory board for farmers, very likely to give realistic numbers for expected yields.
2) Cellulose (C6H10O5)n, carbon content by mass (6*12)/(6*12+10*1+5*16)=0.44
3) Based on numbers from Energy Information Administration (http://www.eia.doe.gov/), US Department of Energy (http://www.energy.gov/)

[Swift]

The reason I took a potshot was that we have already proven that we dont have anyone here who can talk to the prudent objective scientific methodology.

Since all you did was make a 'look at all the idiots' post for your OP, I dont even see you talking about the science.
This is mostly just my opinion, though my moderator hat is close at hand, but as I suggested earlier, there are already multiple threads in the Science and Technology forum discussing the science of GW. I don't see a need for another one in BABBling. My take was that this thread was mostly to discuss the attitudes to GW. But if I am incorrect in that assumption, I would like kleindoofy to clarify it.

[kleindoofy]

... My take was that this thread was mostly to discuss the attitudes to GW. ...
Bingo. Just strike the "mostly" and insert "only" while putting an accent on "attitudes."

The intention was not a 'look at all the idiots' post. Considering the gravity of the subject involved, I was simply astonished. I haven't been living under a rock for the last 10 years, so the observed attitudes are nothing new to me, but the still, it was pretty scary.

we dont have anyone here who can talk to the prudent objective scientific methodology
Maybe, but we have at least enough here whose methodological background has taught them when to say oida ouden eidos and shut up and listen instead of obstinately dismissing scientific research and prognosis as if it were bar room opinions about the merits of the White Sox bullpen.

[korjik]

Bingo. Just strike the "mostly" and insert "only" while putting an accent on "attitudes."

The intention was not a 'look at all the idiots' post. Considering the gravity of the subject involved, I was simply astonished. I haven't been living under a rock for the last 10 years, so the observed attitudes are nothing new to me, but the still, it was pretty scary.


Maybe, but we have at least enough here whose methodological background has taught them when to say oida ouden eidos and shut up and listen instead of obstinately dismissing scientific research and prognosis as if it were bar room opinions about the merits of the White Sox bullpen.

How exactly do you know that you arent swallowing scientific research and prognosis as if it were gospel instead of having an informed opinion?

Your opinion is no better and no worse. You do not have the background knowledge to evaluate the science on the merits any more than the people you quote.

I would also point out that if this thread is to discuss the attitudes towards GW, then it really has no place here. You are making a value judgement on the opinion and knowledge that people have concerning GW and not discussing the science. I believe that violates one of the board rules

[BigDon]

Kor, this is Babbling. I feel klien can postulate on his relationship with his 6 foot tall invisable rabbit if he so desires.

[BigDon]

Klien, in California at least, people have been scaring me with this since 1972, when I was twelve. I'm almost fifty now and I'm starting to feel how a Planet X supporter must feel. Where is my end of the world I've been looking forward too?

[korjik]

The thing is, plants are limited in the amount of CO2 they can remove from the atmosphere, since they don't "filter" it out, they use it for plant mass, and once they die it's released again from that mass as they are eaten/rot.
It's a one-off temporary reduction.

Had the CO2 in the atmosphere been solely from burning plants there would have been no problem since it would have been a release of CO2 that had been removed a few years earlier and everything would have been in balance, but we're currently burning forests from millions of years ago and that's skewing the short term(tens to thousands of years) balance in a way that can't be compensated by more plants.

Let's get numbers on the table:)

In Denmark, research into biofuels have found that the fastest growth in biomass here is willows harvested after three years.
For economic calculations (to see if it's a profitable crop) 8-14 tons dry mass(25% water) per hectare is expected1, lets use the optimistic 14 tons.
Call all the non-water cellulose2 for yet an over-estimate of carbon content gives 14*0.75*0.44=4.62t/ha/yr. This is how much is locked in plant matter short term.

Coal consumption worldwide3 is 4,558,273,000 t/yr.
This means that to remove the amount of CO2 added per year from coal power alone, you need to take the plant matter from 1 billion hectares(2.5 billion acres/5.8 Texas's) every year and remove it from the system completely, or alternatively add 1 billion hectares(2.5 billion acres/5.8 Texas's) a year to the area where plants are grown.

Sorry, won't work.

1) Dansk Landbrugsrådgivning (http://www.lr.dk/planteavl/informationsserier/info-planter/bioenergi-kalkuler.htm), Danish advisory board for farmers, very likely to give realistic numbers for expected yields.
2) Cellulose (C6H10O5)n, carbon content by mass (6*12)/(6*12+10*1+5*16)=0.44
3) Based on numbers from Energy Information Administration (http://www.eia.doe.gov/), US Department of Energy (http://www.energy.gov/)

How about an artificial peat bog of about 20000 square kilometers to a depth of a kilometer?

That could contain about 44 years worth of carbon from coal (assuming an average density of water). Not alot in the great scheme of things but it does give an idea of scale.

How about fixing carbon by plankton to create limestone?

[Swift]

I would also point out that if this thread is to discuss the attitudes towards GW, then it really has no place here. You are making a value judgement on the opinion and knowledge that people have concerning GW and not discussing the science. I believe that violates one of the board rules
korjik, I know of no rule this thread is violating. There are currently threads open in BABBling where people are presenting their value judgements on a huge range of things, from the silly to the serious. But, if you think there is a problem with a post or a thread - Don't debate it in the thread, just report it!

[SolusLupus]

There are arguments on both sides...

One can say that about the arguments over the "Apollo Hoax", or whether or not the sun revolves around the Earth or vice versa. The existence of an argument on any issue is more or less moot.

[Ronald Brak]

How about an artificial peat bog of about 20000 square kilometers to a depth of a kilometer?

Peat is made from plants so you'd need 2,552 Texas's of plant material to fill your bog. Well, 5,000 actually since Henrick's figures are a little conservative.

How about fixing carbon by plankton to create limestone?

Any suggestion on how to go about this?

[korjik]

Peat is made from plants so you'd need 2,552 Texas's of plant material to fill your bog. Well, 5,000 actually since Henrick's figures are a little conservative.

Unless I am reading his figures wrong, Henrik is saying that you would need surface area of 1 billion hectares to grow enough plant material in one year to offset 4.5 billion tons of carbon emission from coal. At one ton per cubic meter (density of water) that is 4.5 cubic kilometers per year. My hypothetical peat bog is 20000 cubic kilometers, so I guess I did figure wrong. It would take 4400 years to fill.

If I am remembering right, that would be a land area about the size of the american midwest, with a fraction of one US state providing the bog.

Any suggestion on how to go about this?

Make more of the types of the plankton with calcium carbonate shells grow quicker. :)

I dont have much more than that. I do plasma physics, not marine biology.

[Ronald Brak]

I see what you are saying now. Yes, dumping logs or other plant material into aneorobic conditions is definatley one way to lock up carbon. But it might be more economical to grow the trees/plants and then coke them and use them instead of coal. A few percent of the carbon would be sequested as ash so we would stop adding CO2 to the atmosphere fro coal and start removing some too.

Seeding the oceans to increase plankton's uptake of carbon doesn't appear very economical compared to say dumping offcuts of wood into a low temperature water. However genetically engineered or synthetic bacteria might make it cheaper. But there are some potential drawbacks that would have to be overcome such as the potential destruction of the world's ecosystems.

[HenrikOlsen]

My main reason for doing the calculation was actually to get numbers on the idea that the extra carbon in the air would magically go away because of increased plant growth.

Oh, and because it gave me a legitimate excuse for using Texas as a unit.:D

[Swift]

Oh, and because it gave me a legitimate excuse for using Texas as a unit.:D
I'm sorry, Texas may only be used as a unit for the size of meteors that are about to destroy the Earth. ;)

[peteshimmon]

Mmmm...well the arguments are perhaps tending
more one way...than the other.

[SolusLupus]

Mmmm...well the arguments are perhaps tending
more one way...than the other.
Indeed, they are.

[peteshimmon]

But no firm conclusions yet!

[SolusLupus]

We're certainly closer to knowing than we are not. In fact, some of the predictions have not only come true, but are worse than expected. I'm not sure how one can keep playing the "we don't know for sure!" card over and over again.

[peteshimmon]

Well I have had my own little obsessions that
I have posted here over recent years. Does
shipping reduce plankton by any measureable
extent, are rising sea levels starting to
be detected by instrumentation, will the
present economic downturn be shown in the
CO2 measurements on Mauna Kea. Anything
that clearly shows that human activity
is greater than natural causes.

[Spirit]

Hi,

I saw somewhere that global warming could be a result of the earth going through cycle's of extreme cold and hot temperature due to collective changes in the Earth's movements called Milankovitch cycles. Is that true and may it be the sole reason for global warming or one of many?

Pat.

[mugaliens]

How about an artificial peat bog of about 20000 square kilometers to a depth of a kilometer?

That could contain about 44 years worth of carbon from coal (assuming an average density of water). Not alot in the great scheme of things but it does give an idea of scale.

How about fixing carbon by plankton to create limestone?

Why not just allow the decimated rainforests in the Amazon basin to regrow?

Waitaminute... Didn't their destruction coincide with the rise in CO?

:doh:

[nauthiz]

I saw somewhere that global warming could be a result of the earth going through cycle's of extreme cold and hot temperature due to collective changes in the Earth's movements called Milankovitch cycles. Is that true and may it be the sole reason for global warming or one of many?


There's a pretty compelling correlation between changes in the planet's orbit and the paleoclimate record, so it almost certainly plays a large part. But the correlation isn't perfect, and there are all sorts of other factors that can potentially play into the climate - atmospheric composition, albedo, solar weather, etc. The climate definitely doesn't railroad along with a single variable.

[korjik]

Why not just allow the decimated rainforests in the Amazon basin to regrow?

Waitaminute... Didn't their destruction coincide with the rise in CO?

:doh:

The specific discussion was coal use additions to atmo CO2. My idea is effectively putting it back where it came from.

[nauthiz]

Any carbon released from tearing down the rainforests would be in addition to carbon that's released from digging up and burning coal.

[Torsten]

http://i259.photobucket.com/albums/hh315/TKphotofolder/BAUT/th_Mauna_Loa_CO2_and_Cumulative_CO2_Em.jpg (http://s259.photobucket.com/albums/hh315/TKphotofolder/BAUT/Mauna_Loa_CO2_and_Cumulative_CO2_Em.jpg)

Click image to enlarge. Data from here (http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/international/iealf/tableh1co2.xls) and here (ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/trends/co2_annmean_mlo.txt).

Between 1900 and 2002, humanity released about 1,027 billion tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere from the burning of fossil fuels and production of cement. During the same period the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere increased by about 577 billion tonnes. That means that about 78% more CO2 was released from fossil sources by human activity than accumulated in the atmosphere. Details here (http://www.bautforum.com/1315731-post20.html).